![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The list of Kant's merits is short, as compared with the list of defects. However, Schopenhauer believed that the merits were extremely valuable. The defects were important, but did not cancel the value of the merits.
Wittgenstein and Tolstoy learned their Kant by reading Schopenhauer's criticism.
When Kant positioned the faculty or power of judgment between understanding and reason (Critique of Judgment), it recalled his positioning of schemata between time and understanding (Critique of Pure Reason).
Schopenhauer's position about the total separateness of the different provinces of nature does not seem to be in accord with modern science. Contemporary scientists seek to unify the separate branches of science.
It almost seems that Kant's overriding interest was with showing that subjective knowledge cannot be assumed to be objective knowledge.
I've removed the top-level category here, and replaced it with category:Philosophical arguments. Someone with more experience in this area might wish to consider what other cats the article should involve. Banno 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi according to me there is an error in this article
I, reading my school book (written by existentialist philosopher Nicola Abbagnano) learned that according to Kant the concepts of the reason are the ideas of God (rational theology), World (rational cosmology) and Soul (rational psycology), not Freedom and Immortality. -- 89.97.102.196 ( talk) 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Needs an "In popular culture" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.13 ( talk) 05:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Why "Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy"? Would "Schopenhauer's criticism of Kantian philosophy" be better? Or maybe "Schopenhauer's criticism of Immanuel Kant"? The current title sounds odd. Srnec ( talk) 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The title sounds odd to Srnec, but it didn't sound odd to Richard Haldane and John Kemp when they published their translation in 1891 of Schopenhauer's "Kritik der Kantischen Philosophie." Lt. Col. E. F. J. Payne didn't find it odd when he published his translation in 1958. So we have a scale that balances Srnec on one side and Haldane, Kemp, and Payne on the other side. Unfortunately, the three English gentlemen who published their translations are deceased. Srnec has the advantage of being alive. Therefore, Srnec is a Wikipedia Winner and that is how the game is played. Lestrade ( talk) 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
The German word "Kritik" means, in English, "criticism" or "critique." The German word "Kritiker" means, in English, "critic." In English, the title of Schopenhauer's work is "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy." It is ignorant, stubborn, and contrary to insist that the title should be "Critic of the Kantian philosophy" instead of "Criticism of the Kantian philosophy." The current title, however, is perfectly consistent and in accord with Wikipedia standards, which are at the level of a fourteen year–old who has never read a book by Schopenhauer, or, probably, any other origin work by a philosopher. The article was well–intended but is really useless and a waste of space because the people who would benefit will never read it or know that it exists. The best thing that could happen is that it should be subjected to continuous and gradual vandalism, preferably by teenagers in a North American high school, until it reaches the point of being complete gibberish. Lestrade ( talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
Since this article exists only in English it's worth reading and it's a good thing that some people took the oain to write it. [[User talk:Flocon]talk]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.22.116.91 ( talk) 12:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As a reader of both Kant and Schopenhauer, I came across this article which is, I note, entirely devoted to Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant. I think if it were straightforwardly titled 'Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant', it might seem a bit esoteric for Wiki, but that's really all that is going on, here. Every major philosopher since Kant, and this is probably utterly without exception, has his criticisms of Kant. I don't think that Schopenhauer's particular criticisms have been massively influential. In the end, Schopenhauer counts himself as a Kantian, so in the larger landscape, his criticisms are going to look like quibbles, this is for example, I think, true of mainstream Anglo-American Analytic philosophy. Frege and Russell, foundational figures here, both had their criticisms of Kant, but that's quite a different discussion.
Also, even if we insist on a Wiki article detailing Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant, there's more of Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant. Such as, his view of the Kantian antimonies, Schopenhauer took these to be sophistry, he rejected all four of them, in a similar fashion, by embracing the antithesis, and rejecting the thesis. Kant's antimonies have attracted a fair amount of attention, and Schopenhauer's view is a minority view indeed, even among those who reject Kant's antimonies. The Wiki article on Kant's antimonies doesn't even mention Shopenhauer, which I can understand. One can always discuss Schopenhauer under 'Schopenhauer'.
Now, I find Schopenhauer interesting. I'm just quite confident, that the only relevance that this article can have, at least currently, will be for those who find Schopenhauer interesting. And even if they do, there's little effort to reply on Kant's behalf, to these criticisms. The article could be developed further in this direction, though again, I'm not sure if just any- and everything, such as this, falls under wikipedia's scope. I guess it can't hurt, but the article's title is still misleading.
DanLanglois ( talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The article on Kantian Ethics cites NCSU's Dr. Tom Regan's critique of Kant's categorical dismissal of animals' claims to moral reverence:
Animal ethics
I think we should have a few lines on this specific criticism, which I think is grounded in observation, not imputation. MaynardClark ( talk) 00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | The request to rename this article to Critique of the Kantian Philosophy has been carried out. |
Critique of the Kantian philosophy → Critique of the Kantian Philosophy – Per MOS:TITLECAPS. 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 23:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The list of Kant's merits is short, as compared with the list of defects. However, Schopenhauer believed that the merits were extremely valuable. The defects were important, but did not cancel the value of the merits.
Wittgenstein and Tolstoy learned their Kant by reading Schopenhauer's criticism.
When Kant positioned the faculty or power of judgment between understanding and reason (Critique of Judgment), it recalled his positioning of schemata between time and understanding (Critique of Pure Reason).
Schopenhauer's position about the total separateness of the different provinces of nature does not seem to be in accord with modern science. Contemporary scientists seek to unify the separate branches of science.
It almost seems that Kant's overriding interest was with showing that subjective knowledge cannot be assumed to be objective knowledge.
I've removed the top-level category here, and replaced it with category:Philosophical arguments. Someone with more experience in this area might wish to consider what other cats the article should involve. Banno 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi according to me there is an error in this article
I, reading my school book (written by existentialist philosopher Nicola Abbagnano) learned that according to Kant the concepts of the reason are the ideas of God (rational theology), World (rational cosmology) and Soul (rational psycology), not Freedom and Immortality. -- 89.97.102.196 ( talk) 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Needs an "In popular culture" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.13 ( talk) 05:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Why "Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy"? Would "Schopenhauer's criticism of Kantian philosophy" be better? Or maybe "Schopenhauer's criticism of Immanuel Kant"? The current title sounds odd. Srnec ( talk) 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The title sounds odd to Srnec, but it didn't sound odd to Richard Haldane and John Kemp when they published their translation in 1891 of Schopenhauer's "Kritik der Kantischen Philosophie." Lt. Col. E. F. J. Payne didn't find it odd when he published his translation in 1958. So we have a scale that balances Srnec on one side and Haldane, Kemp, and Payne on the other side. Unfortunately, the three English gentlemen who published their translations are deceased. Srnec has the advantage of being alive. Therefore, Srnec is a Wikipedia Winner and that is how the game is played. Lestrade ( talk) 20:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
The German word "Kritik" means, in English, "criticism" or "critique." The German word "Kritiker" means, in English, "critic." In English, the title of Schopenhauer's work is "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy." It is ignorant, stubborn, and contrary to insist that the title should be "Critic of the Kantian philosophy" instead of "Criticism of the Kantian philosophy." The current title, however, is perfectly consistent and in accord with Wikipedia standards, which are at the level of a fourteen year–old who has never read a book by Schopenhauer, or, probably, any other origin work by a philosopher. The article was well–intended but is really useless and a waste of space because the people who would benefit will never read it or know that it exists. The best thing that could happen is that it should be subjected to continuous and gradual vandalism, preferably by teenagers in a North American high school, until it reaches the point of being complete gibberish. Lestrade ( talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
Since this article exists only in English it's worth reading and it's a good thing that some people took the oain to write it. [[User talk:Flocon]talk]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.22.116.91 ( talk) 12:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As a reader of both Kant and Schopenhauer, I came across this article which is, I note, entirely devoted to Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant. I think if it were straightforwardly titled 'Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant', it might seem a bit esoteric for Wiki, but that's really all that is going on, here. Every major philosopher since Kant, and this is probably utterly without exception, has his criticisms of Kant. I don't think that Schopenhauer's particular criticisms have been massively influential. In the end, Schopenhauer counts himself as a Kantian, so in the larger landscape, his criticisms are going to look like quibbles, this is for example, I think, true of mainstream Anglo-American Analytic philosophy. Frege and Russell, foundational figures here, both had their criticisms of Kant, but that's quite a different discussion.
Also, even if we insist on a Wiki article detailing Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant, there's more of Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant. Such as, his view of the Kantian antimonies, Schopenhauer took these to be sophistry, he rejected all four of them, in a similar fashion, by embracing the antithesis, and rejecting the thesis. Kant's antimonies have attracted a fair amount of attention, and Schopenhauer's view is a minority view indeed, even among those who reject Kant's antimonies. The Wiki article on Kant's antimonies doesn't even mention Shopenhauer, which I can understand. One can always discuss Schopenhauer under 'Schopenhauer'.
Now, I find Schopenhauer interesting. I'm just quite confident, that the only relevance that this article can have, at least currently, will be for those who find Schopenhauer interesting. And even if they do, there's little effort to reply on Kant's behalf, to these criticisms. The article could be developed further in this direction, though again, I'm not sure if just any- and everything, such as this, falls under wikipedia's scope. I guess it can't hurt, but the article's title is still misleading.
DanLanglois ( talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The article on Kantian Ethics cites NCSU's Dr. Tom Regan's critique of Kant's categorical dismissal of animals' claims to moral reverence:
Animal ethics
I think we should have a few lines on this specific criticism, which I think is grounded in observation, not imputation. MaynardClark ( talk) 00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | The request to rename this article to Critique of the Kantian Philosophy has been carried out. |
Critique of the Kantian philosophy → Critique of the Kantian Philosophy – Per MOS:TITLECAPS. 142.160.89.97 ( talk) 23:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)